2. Textbook definition of surveillance is watching and collecting. "Active measures" are "spy stuff" but usually far outside of the scope of intelligence collection.
3. Fair point, no way to know. But from what has come out from PRISM/NSA leaks, it honestly looks that the US intel community is mostly postured for data collection.
Has China sabotaged anyone's medical records, or taken down any power grids lately?
> Fair point, no way to know. But from what has come out from PRISM/NSA leaks, it honestly looks to be just purely surveillance.
Snowden was an NSA contractor, the NSA would not be responsible for sabotage, their raison d'etre is passive surveillance.
The CIA would be, and nobody's dumped 50 TB of random powerpoints from their Sharepoint deployment. However, various leaks over the years strongly imply that they do conduct sabotage - directly, or by funding saboteurs.
1. Stuxnet.
2. What makes you think this is not surveillance?
3. What makes you certain that CIA black budgets are not spent on sabotage? They don't exactly let anyone audit them...